Jean, I don know why you assume I have any feud with them ... I can assure you that in all this I have just opinions and no personal issues at all, and I will have no problems changing of opinion when new evidence ... is available.

I'm happy to hear this. It struck me as strange that you declared that Spanish academia would be ranged against me en masse, when that does not appear to be the case. Villar and Prosper were ahead of me, as was Almagro-Gorbea. (In fact I have to thank you for raising this issue, because it made me look back at E-Keltoi and realise that I should cite the latter. I already included the former.)

I think though that it should be taken into account that Altantic Iberia has two phases of connectivity to the north with a gap in between as one of the articles in E-Keloi points out:

1. The Maritime bell beaker phase when it was part of a wide network which covered both future Italic and Ligurian areas (more strongly) and Celtic area (much more weakly)

2. There was a gap in between of maybe 1000 years when Atlantic Iberia was more connected to the west Med. networks as far as Italy than with the future Celtic areas.

3. The Atlantic Bronze Age when Atlantic Iberia had a fairly strong link with the more northern Atlantic Areas.

I believe at stage 1. It was probably an undifferentiated Celto-Italic group. In between it is likely that the Celto-Italic of Atlantic Iberia evolved along more Italic lines and this is preserved in Lusitanian and related substrates noted in other parts of Atlantic Iberia as well as Ligurian. Finally in stage stage 3 it is only then that I think Atlantic Iberia was Celticised through contacts towards the north. I actually think the most likely period and position that Celtic evolved from Italo-Celtic first was in the immedaite post-beaker high status links between Wessex, Armorica, Unetice cultures as well as less well known cultures in between these and on their fringes. I think it evolved in a broad zone from the isles to northern France to west-central Europe in that period of elite interaction that seperated it somewhat from the Italic world. All of these cultures are culturally derived from beaker too so shared a common route. However this sphere of interaction was rather more confined than beaker as a whole and makes a good case for the origin of the Celtic dialect. IMO this was extended to Iberia only during the Atlantic Bronze Age some centuries later.

That is all based on timing, degree and direction of contacts over time and the positions of the earliest attested languages.

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.

That makes more sense. So does it then mean we are looking at a wide and very rapid spread of L11 prior to the birth's of P312 and U106?

I acknowledge that it is possible that ancient L11* expanded widely first, and then P312 and U106 were born and expanded out of different birth places far apart. The corollary is that the P312 TMRCA and the U106 TMRCA were just plain lucky in that their descendants far outpaced/outsurvived the rest of L11*.

However, I think it is far more likely that P312 and U106 were born before the widespread and successful dispersion of L11 types. The implication is they didn't originate that far from each other. I'll explain later.

... The L11* MRCA for P312 and U106 was a single man. It is true he could have travelled wide and far in his lifetime, but I think it is more likely he was successful because he had the full logistical support of a colonization/settlement group with him. The early explorers, traders and trappers don't leave the mark the settlers do. Who would those colonizers/settlers be? Probably a lot of relatives, hence the real L11* TMRCA for U106/P312 was back home and several generations dead at the time of the colonizations. Maybe the actual progenitor was not even from Western Europe at all.

This is one explanation for how P312 and U106 seem to have such distant distributions while still being closely related. Back home, they may not have really been that successful. In fact, large migrations are often (perhaps almost all the time) caused by stress and survival requirements. We can think they were kings, like a King of Stonehenge/Amesbury Archer, but maybe their parents were escapees or exiled folks from back home and just found easy pickings in Western Europe. Lucky for them.

I should point out that Busby added data points that Myres did not have and south and central Portugal have more L11* than anything on the Baltic with a much larger sample size. In fact, the north Poland number is 1 of 17 samples and should be treated with caution. The consistent appearance in Swiss samples is also interesting.

That makes more sense. So does it then mean we are looking at a wide and very rapid spread of L11 prior to the birth's of P312 and U106?

I acknowledge that it is possible that ancient L11* expanded widely first, and then P312 and U106 were born and expanded out of different birth places far apart. The corollary is that the P312 TMRCA and the U106 TMRCA were just plain lucky in that their descendants far outpaced/outsurvived the rest of L11*.

However, I think it is far more likely that P312 and U106 were born before the widespread and successful dispersion of L11 types. The implication is they didn't originate that far from each other. I'll explain later.

... The L11* MRCA for P312 and U106 was a single man. It is true he could have travelled wide and far in his lifetime, but I think it is more likely he was successful because he had the full logistical support of a colonization/settlement group with him. The early explorers, traders and trappers don't leave the mark the settlers do. Who would those colonizers/settlers be? Probably a lot of relatives, hence the real L11* TMRCA for U106/P312 was back home and several generations dead at the time of the colonizations. Maybe the actual progenitor was not even from Western Europe at all.

This is one explanation for how P312 and U106 seem to have such distant distributions while still being closely related. Back home, they may not have really been that successful. In fact, large migrations are often (perhaps almost all the time) caused by stress and survival requirements. We can think they were kings, like a King of Stonehenge/Amesbury Archer, but maybe their parents were escapees or exiled folks from back home and just found easy pickings in Western Europe. . .

However many (or seemingly few) generations of L11* there were, at some point there was a parting of the ways and one maybe went west and another maybe went north. The starting and ending points we keep wishing we were smart enough to figure out with inadequate data. Current variance aside I still wonder about the affect of the early pre-Roman Iron Age climate change on early U106.

I think though that it should be taken into account that Altantic Iberia has two phases of connectivity to the north with a gap in between as one of the articles in E-Keloi points out:

1. The Maritime bell beaker phase when it was part of a wide network which covered both future Italic and Ligurian areas (more strongly) and Celtic area (much more weakly)

2. There was a gap in between of maybe 1000 years when Atlantic Iberia was more connected to the west Med. networks as far as Italy than with the future Celtic areas.

3. The Atlantic Bronze Age when Atlantic Iberia had a fairly strong link with the more northern Atlantic Areas.

I believe at stage 1. It was probably an undifferentiated Celto-Italic group. In between it is likely that the Celto-Italic of Atlantic Iberia evolved along more Italic lines and this is preserved in Lusitanian and related substrates noted in other parts of Atlantic Iberia as well as Ligurian. Finally in stage stage 3 it is only then that I think Atlantic Iberia was Celticised through contacts towards the north. I actually think the most likely period and position that Celtic evolved from Italo-Celtic first was in the immedaite post-beaker high status links between Wessex, Armorica, Unetice cultures as well as less well known cultures in between these and on their fringes. I think it evolved in a broad zone from the isles to northern France to west-central Europe in that period of elite interaction that seperated it somewhat from the Italic world. All of these cultures are culturally derived from beaker too so shared a common route. However this sphere of interaction was rather more confined than beaker as a whole and makes a good case for the origin of the Celtic dialect. IMO this was extended to Iberia only during the Atlantic Bronze Age some centuries later.

That is all based on timing, degree and direction of contacts over time and the positions of the earliest attested languages.

Alan,

Here are a number of images from Cunliffes, Britian Begins, which also appears on Google Books. I am currently reading it on Kindle. It is a great read.It clearly illustrates the Atlantic Migration from the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages inclusing Bell Beaker and Cardial Ware migrations.

I think though that it should be taken into account that Altantic Iberia has two phases of connectivity to the north with a gap in between as one of the articles in E-Keloi points out:

1. The Maritime bell beaker phase when it was part of a wide network which covered both future Italic and Ligurian areas (more strongly) and Celtic area (much more weakly)

2. There was a gap in between of maybe 1000 years when Atlantic Iberia was more connected to the west Med. networks as far as Italy than with the future Celtic areas.

3. The Atlantic Bronze Age when Atlantic Iberia had a fairly strong link with the more northern Atlantic Areas.

I believe at stage 1. It was probably an undifferentiated Celto-Italic group. In between it is likely that the Celto-Italic of Atlantic Iberia evolved along more Italic lines and this is preserved in Lusitanian and related substrates noted in other parts of Atlantic Iberia as well as Ligurian. Finally in stage stage 3 it is only then that I think Atlantic Iberia was Celticised through contacts towards the north. I actually think the most likely period and position that Celtic evolved from Italo-Celtic first was in the immedaite post-beaker high status links between Wessex, Armorica, Unetice cultures as well as less well known cultures in between these and on their fringes. I think it evolved in a broad zone from the isles to northern France to west-central Europe in that period of elite interaction that seperated it somewhat from the Italic world. All of these cultures are culturally derived from beaker too so shared a common route. However this sphere of interaction was rather more confined than beaker as a whole and makes a good case for the origin of the Celtic dialect. IMO this was extended to Iberia only during the Atlantic Bronze Age some centuries later.

That is all based on timing, degree and direction of contacts over time and the positions of the earliest attested languages.

Alan,

Here are a number of images from Cunliffes, Britian Begins, which also appears on Google Books. I am currently reading it on Kindle. It is a great read.It clearly illustrates the Atlantic Migration from the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages inclusing Bell Beaker and Cardial Ware migrations.